Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Jan 17, 2013, 10:39:Like I said, it gets dismissed a lot, but there are many ways that governments can fail, and trying to predict how it will happen is futile. It may be quick and relatively painless, as some are, or it may get very bad and very messy. The really bad things tend to happen to unarmed populations.

What else am I to infer from your use of the term "gun worship"? Maybe you should explain what you mean by that, if not the common meaning? I don't believe it's gun worship at all for most people. It's a desire for the right to keep and bear arms, as the Constitution states. For hunting, sporting, self and home defense, and as a hedge against the government becoming tyrannical. I know that many dismiss that last one out of hand, but it is a legitimate reason, given even a passing familiarity with history and the rise and fall of governments.

I was pretty explicit in my explanation, not sure what else you're looking for there. It was not a character judgment, it was a reference to media and culture. The revolution stuff is downright silly, a coup d'etat is far more likely and realistic. Most revolutions are fought by a very small force with popular support. People don't need guns to overthrow the government, not in these kind of volumes anyway, they just need numbers and a willingness to do so.

Like I said, it gets dismissed a lot, but there are many ways that governments can fail, and trying to predict how it will happen is futile. It may be quick and relatively painless, as some are, or it may get very bad and very messy. The really bad things tend to happen to unarmed populations.

Verno wrote on Jan 17, 2013, 09:58:

What works in other countries won't necessarily work here. Other countries have different values too. Some don't recognize a legitimate right to self-defense using firearms (or any lethal means in some cases). They have different histories, cultures, population densities, laws (aside from just gun laws), etc., that make them very different from us.

Sometimes different is good. You can learn things from differences. I don't just want to give up because some of their underlying factors are different than ours, I'd like to know why gun culture is so pervasive and examine if that's something that needs to be changed in the future.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't look at others, but I am saying that there are some things that aren't going to be on the table (like taking away a right to self-defense), and in light of that, you have to consider whether a potential solution from elsewhere would still work here. Without very broad agreement, major changes won't really be possible.

Verno wrote on Jan 17, 2013, 09:58:

I want to address the real issues that lead to these kinds of tragedies, but I also think we need to keep some perspective on it. Violent crime has been dropping for a long time now. Most homicides committed with a gun are still related to gang and drug violence. More people are killed by unarmed people than by rifles and shotguns combined. There are things that should be done, but most of the proposals we've seen so far are just political theater. They aren't going to fix anything.

I haven't examined all 23 measures introduced yesterday in depth yet so I can't really comment.

I'm still going through those measures as well. I was really referring to most of the ideas that other politicians and talking heads have been putting forth in the last few weeks. Everything from complete bans on all semi-automatic rifles, to banning violent games, to a tax on bullets.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

What else am I to infer from your use of the term "gun worship"? Maybe you should explain what you mean by that, if not the common meaning? I don't believe it's gun worship at all for most people. It's a desire for the right to keep and bear arms, as the Constitution states. For hunting, sporting, self and home defense, and as a hedge against the government becoming tyrannical. I know that many dismiss that last one out of hand, but it is a legitimate reason, given even a passing familiarity with history and the rise and fall of governments.

I was pretty explicit in my explanation, not sure what else you're looking for there. It was not a character judgment, it was a reference to media and culture. The revolution stuff is downright silly, a coup d'etat is far more likely and realistic. Most revolutions are fought by a very small force with popular support. People don't need guns to overthrow the government, not in these kind of volumes anyway, they just need numbers and a willingness to do so.

What works in other countries won't necessarily work here. Other countries have different values too. Some don't recognize a legitimate right to self-defense using firearms (or any lethal means in some cases). They have different histories, cultures, population densities, laws (aside from just gun laws), etc., that make them very different from us.

Sometimes different is good. You can learn things from differences. I don't just want to give up because some of their underlying factors are different than ours, I'd like to know why gun culture is so pervasive and examine if that's something that needs to be changed in the future.

I want to address the real issues that lead to these kinds of tragedies, but I also think we need to keep some perspective on it. Violent crime has been dropping for a long time now. Most homicides committed with a gun are still related to gang and drug violence. More people are killed by unarmed people than by rifles and shotguns combined. There are things that should be done, but most of the proposals we've seen so far are just political theater. They aren't going to fix anything.

I haven't examined all 23 measures introduced yesterday in depth yet so I can't really comment.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 13:35:You're talking about banning the most common magazines in the world because you want to do something, even though you have no idea what effect it would actually have, if any. That's not rational.

No, I said I didn't understand the purpose of them, I didn't say I supported outright banning them. As in I'm not a gun owner and I don't see why it's so important for recreational or home defense purposes. I was just addressing what you said about how it wouldn't make a difference in that situation. I've already pointed out several times that addressing the root problems will require more than minor changes to gun control, although I do think there are improvements to be made in the area of gun control.

The purpose of them is convenience in most cases. Reloading mags takes a lot longer than changing them, and when you're out shooting, whether for sport, varmint control, or whatever, you don't have to carry so many with you. They are also a standard part of shooting sports that focus on time and accuracy. 20 and 30 round mags are just standard fare for semi-automatic rifles. They are ubiquitous.

If not banning them, then what are you suggesting?

Verno wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 13:56:

Nor is calling people's defense of their rights "gun worship". You don't engage in a productive dialog with that kind of attack on people's character.

I didn't offer any character judgments, those are inferred on your part. In terms of productive dialog, that works both ways. The NRA pledged to defeat any new gun law introduced, there wasn't even room for discussion. Smaller clips is no solution but no discussion about any measure isn't productive either. I am just pointing out that America worships the gun, it's ingrained in popular culture, many families pass it on as a tradition and they are widespread in our media. This isn't even a political left vs right thing either. People keep zeroing in on mental health and gun control but culturally we need to change too in my opinion.

What else am I to infer from your use of the term "gun worship"? Maybe you should explain what you mean by that, if not the common meaning? I don't believe it's gun worship at all for most people. It's a desire for the right to keep and bear arms, as the Constitution states. For hunting, sporting, self and home defense, and as a hedge against the government becoming tyrannical. I know that many dismiss that last one out of hand, but it is a legitimate reason, given even a passing familiarity with history and the rise and fall of governments. Probably won't happen in our lifetimes, or the next couple generations, but it can and does happen.

Verno wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 13:56:

I've offered up some ideas for things that might actually help in previous threads on this subject.

I think many people have shared ideas that might help, the trouble is putting it all together into something that the country can move forward with politically and functionally. Everyone wants the mentally ill to have better care but no one wants to pay taxes for it. Half the country wants as little restriction on personal firearms as possible, the other half wants as many as possible. Everyone wants less weapons coming in through the black market but most attempts are stopgap and temporary. Worse, many American corporations have profited from it.

Ultimately the country needs to decide if its going to care for longer than a mass shooting news cycle and I'm not sure that it truly does. We need to examine what works in other countries and ask ourselves why our approach isn't. I don't just mean mass shootings either, just saving lives and negating injuries in general should be the goal we're shooting for here.

What works in other countries won't necessarily work here. Other countries have different values too. Some don't recognize a legitimate right to self-defense using firearms (or any lethal means in some cases). They have different histories, cultures, population densities, laws (aside from just gun laws), etc., that make them very different from us.

I'm not a nutter that's going to go live in a militia camp or something to hang on to my guns (actually I don't own any guns). I'm not against providing health care, including mental health care, for people. I'm not against paying for it either. Hell, I voted for Obama twice. Even though Obamacare is not all that great, it was still an improvement, and better than anything the Republicans were putting forth.

I want to address the real issues that lead to these kinds of tragedies, but I also think we need to keep some perspective on it. Violent crime has been dropping for a long time now. Most homicides committed with a gun are still related to gang and drug violence. More people are killed by unarmed people than by rifles and shotguns combined. There are things that should be done, but most of the proposals we've seen so far are just political theater. They aren't going to fix anything.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 13:35:You're talking about banning the most common magazines in the world because you want to do something, even though you have no idea what effect it would actually have, if any. That's not rational.

No, I said I didn't understand the purpose of them, I didn't say I supported outright banning them. As in I'm not a gun owner and I don't see why it's so important for recreational or home defense purposes. I was just addressing what you said about how it wouldn't make a difference in that situation. I've already pointed out several times that addressing the root problems will require more than minor changes to gun control, although I do think there are improvements to be made in the area of gun control.

Nor is calling people's defense of their rights "gun worship". You don't engage in a productive dialog with that kind of attack on people's character.

I didn't offer any character judgments, those are inferred on your part. In terms of productive dialog, that works both ways. The NRA pledged to defeat any new gun law introduced, there wasn't even room for discussion. Smaller clips is no solution but no discussion about any measure isn't productive either. I am just pointing out that America worships the gun, it's ingrained in popular culture, many families pass it on as a tradition and they are widespread in our media. This isn't even a political left vs right thing either. People keep zeroing in on mental health and gun control but culturally we need to change too in my opinion.

I've offered up some ideas for things that might actually help in previous threads on this subject.

I think many people have shared ideas that might help, the trouble is putting it all together into something that the country can move forward with politically and functionally. Everyone wants the mentally ill to have better care but no one wants to pay taxes for it. Half the country wants as little restriction on personal firearms as possible, the other half wants as many as possible. Everyone wants less weapons coming in through the black market but most attempts are stopgap and temporary. Worse, many American corporations have profited from it.

Ultimately the country needs to decide if its going to care for longer than a mass shooting news cycle and I'm not sure that it truly does. We need to examine what works in other countries and ask ourselves why our approach isn't. I don't just mean mass shootings either, just saving lives and negating injuries in general should be the goal we're shooting for here.

Verno wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 12:28:Changing a magazine could mean life or death for someone in those circumstances. It might mean the person is stopped by interference from authorities or civilians, it's a brief period of vulnerability. It might mean someone flees or whatever, I don't know. It's kind of ridiculous to even speculate to be honest. In general I don't see the purpose of large magazines for the civilian population anyway but I'm one of those weird Republicans who doesn't "get" the gun culture in this country anyway so *shrug*

Personally I think it's going to be a combination of factors, not any single initiative but most importantly people have to stop worshipping guns, it all starts with the underlying culture. That could take generations.

You're talking about banning the most common magazines in the world because you want to do something, even though you have no idea what effect it would actually have, if any. That's not rational. Nor is calling people's defense of their rights "gun worship". You don't engage in a productive dialog with that kind of attack on people's character.

I've offered up some ideas for things that might actually help in previous threads on this subject. But honestly, when you're talking about the difference between a 10 or 20 round mag and a 30 or whatever, you're not addressing the real problem. Once someone has started shooting up a school or a mall or whatever, that stuff is just quibbling over details that the shooter would have had more than enough time to plan around.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Changing a magazine could mean life or death for someone in those circumstances. It might mean the person is stopped by interference from authorities or civilians, it's a brief period of vulnerability. It might mean someone flees or whatever, I don't know. It's kind of ridiculous to even speculate to be honest. In general I don't see the purpose of large magazines for the civilian population anyway but I'm one of those weird Republicans who doesn't "get" the gun culture in this country anyway so *shrug*

Personally I think it's going to be a combination of factors, not any single initiative but most importantly people have to stop worshipping guns, it all starts with the underlying culture. That could take generations.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 05:57:That you guys are blaming clip sizes as the end all be all is very telling. Don't talk about ways to better mental health. It's surely all about clip sizes.

Again, says the guy who keeps screaming "mental health" yet has yet to say what we should DO about mental health.

Clearly our country has issues with mental health, though. No one denies this. The very fact that you exist and are apparently not under close control is proof of our failings. But it's not exactly a switch we can push.

We need to start reducing these events, and the damage that happens at them. We can do so with reduced clips immediately. Immediately. We cannot do so with mental health in any kind of near term.

Again, nobody has explained how banning standard 30 round mags will make anyone safer. When you're in a "gun-free zone" and there's nobody to oppose you, and you have at least one backup weapon (as they all did) does it really matter if you have to change mags?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Beamer wrote on Jan 15, 2013, 10:11:One issue often overlooked here is also the media. Each killing gets covered more and more in-depth. Each shooter becomes more and more a household name. This just leads to more shootings.

But how do you stop that?

We don't know. It's not an easy thing to change. Of course the networks won't stop covering - it's huge ratings. The government doesn't have a leg to stand on to stopping them. And people just tune in.

So there's really nothing we can control there, and that's probably the single biggest factor in why this happens - people wanting to be famous.

Ultimately we can't stop these. All we can do is lessen their frequency and their damage. Hence: smaller clips. Hence: more restrictions on getting guns.

Haven't really seen a case where smaller clips would have mattered. Even the Newtown guy was dropping them half-used. Shotguns can be reloaded on the fly, while always being ready to shoot. Speedloaders and speedstrips make reloading even revolvers very quick. Most shooters carried more than one gun too, so they always have at least a backup. This is all pretty common sense for anyone that plans to get into a firefight.

The only times I can think of where magazine size has figured into the equation was a couple of times when the guy tried to use one of those 100 round drum mags and it caused the weapon to jam, as would be expected by anyone that's familiar with the track record of those things. I think that happened with the Aurora shooter.

So, no, reducing mag size would just be an inconvenience to law-abiding owners. Anyone else doesn't care that they're against the law. They are plentiful around the world and could be had fairly cheaply if someone so desired. We'll just end up creating yet another black market trade across our borders, which, predictably, we'll be completely unsuccessful at stopping. It will, however, give the government all sorts of reasons to infringe on the liberties of citizens in the name of the War on Guns. Yeah, we need another one of those...

These shooters haven't gotten their weapons through illegal means, though. So you can say that they could have purchased larger capacity clips on the black market... but they haven't used the black market. They've purchased everything legitimately, or taken them from others who have.

This whole "acquired through illegal means" argument makes no sense because it isn't relevant. Yeah, there are criminals out there with illegal guns. Do you know who they tend to kill? Other criminals. The vast majority of illegal gun crime is gang crime. The vast majority of gang crime is gang on gang crime.

That you guys are blaming clip sizes as the end all be all is very telling. Don't talk about ways to better mental health. It's surely all about clip sizes.

Again, says the guy who keeps screaming "mental health" yet has yet to say what we should DO about mental health.

Clearly our country has issues with mental health, though. No one denies this. The very fact that you exist and are apparently not under close control is proof of our failings. But it's not exactly a switch we can push.

We need to start reducing these events, and the damage that happens at them. We can do so with reduced clips immediately. Immediately. We cannot do so with mental health in any kind of near term.

Beamer wrote on Jan 15, 2013, 10:11:One issue often overlooked here is also the media. Each killing gets covered more and more in-depth. Each shooter becomes more and more a household name. This just leads to more shootings.

But how do you stop that?

We don't know. It's not an easy thing to change. Of course the networks won't stop covering - it's huge ratings. The government doesn't have a leg to stand on to stopping them. And people just tune in.

So there's really nothing we can control there, and that's probably the single biggest factor in why this happens - people wanting to be famous.

Ultimately we can't stop these. All we can do is lessen their frequency and their damage. Hence: smaller clips. Hence: more restrictions on getting guns.

Haven't really seen a case where smaller clips would have mattered. Even the Newtown guy was dropping them half-used. Shotguns can be reloaded on the fly, while always being ready to shoot. Speedloaders and speedstrips make reloading even revolvers very quick. Most shooters carried more than one gun too, so they always have at least a backup. This is all pretty common sense for anyone that plans to get into a firefight.

The only times I can think of where magazine size has figured into the equation was a couple of times when the guy tried to use one of those 100 round drum mags and it caused the weapon to jam, as would be expected by anyone that's familiar with the track record of those things. I think that happened with the Aurora shooter.

So, no, reducing mag size would just be an inconvenience to law-abiding owners. Anyone else doesn't care that they're against the law. They are plentiful around the world and could be had fairly cheaply if someone so desired. We'll just end up creating yet another black market trade across our borders, which, predictably, we'll be completely unsuccessful at stopping. It will, however, give the government all sorts of reasons to infringe on the liberties of citizens in the name of the War on Guns. Yeah, we need another one of those...

These shooters haven't gotten their weapons through illegal means, though. So you can say that they could have purchased larger capacity clips on the black market... but they haven't used the black market. They've purchased everything legitimately, or taken them from others who have.

This whole "acquired through illegal means" argument makes no sense because it isn't relevant. Yeah, there are criminals out there with illegal guns. Do you know who they tend to kill? Other criminals. The vast majority of illegal gun crime is gang crime. The vast majority of gang crime is gang on gang crime.

That you guys are blaming clip sizes as the end all be all is very telling. Don't talk about ways to better mental health. It's surely all about clip sizes.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Jan 15, 2013, 12:00:Haven't really seen a case where smaller clips would have mattered. Even the Newtown guy was dropping them half-used. Shotguns can be reloaded on the fly, while always being ready to shoot. Speedloaders and speedstrips make reloading even revolvers very quick. Most shooters carried more than one gun too, so they always have at least a backup. This is all pretty common sense for anyone that plans to get into a firefight.

The only times I can think of where magazine size has figured into the equation was a couple of times when the guy tried to use one of those 100 round drum mags and it caused the weapon to jam, as would be expected by anyone that's familiar with the track record of those things. I think that happened with the Aurora shooter.

So, no, reducing mag size would just be an inconvenience to law-abiding owners. Anyone else doesn't care that they're against the law. They are plentiful around the world and could be had fairly cheaply if someone so desired. We'll just end up creating yet another black market trade across our borders, which, predictably, we'll be completely unsuccessful at stopping. It will, however, give the government all sorts of reasons to infringe on the liberties of citizens in the name of the War on Guns. Yeah, we need another one of those...

These shooters haven't gotten their weapons through illegal means, though. So you can say that they could have purchased larger capacity clips on the black market... but they haven't used the black market. They've purchased everything legitimately, or taken them from others who have.

This whole "acquired through illegal means" argument makes no sense because it isn't relevant.

Well, yeah, since the guns and mags are currently legal, you don't really have any need to get them illegally, so there isn't much of a market for them unless you're already on the prohibited list and can't buy them legally. If that changes, then the market will form, just like it does for anything else that gets banned but is still in demand.

Some have gotten them through illegal means (Columbine shooters come to mind), and some shouldn't have been able to buy them at all (like Virginia Tech shooter) if the states were actually reporting things like they should be. Mag capacity isn't really an issue though, it just makes for good political theater.

Beamer wrote on Jan 15, 2013, 13:24:Yeah, there are criminals out there with illegal guns. Do you know who they tend to kill? Other criminals. The vast majority of illegal gun crime is gang crime. The vast majority of gang crime is gang on gang crime.

True enough. I don't really have much concern for gangs/drug dealers getting shot. Ending the drug war and doing more to fight poverty and educate people is about the only thing that will help with that problem.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Beamer wrote on Jan 15, 2013, 10:11:One issue often overlooked here is also the media. Each killing gets covered more and more in-depth. Each shooter becomes more and more a household name. This just leads to more shootings.

But how do you stop that?

We don't know. It's not an easy thing to change. Of course the networks won't stop covering - it's huge ratings. The government doesn't have a leg to stand on to stopping them. And people just tune in.

So there's really nothing we can control there, and that's probably the single biggest factor in why this happens - people wanting to be famous.

Ultimately we can't stop these. All we can do is lessen their frequency and their damage. Hence: smaller clips. Hence: more restrictions on getting guns.

Haven't really seen a case where smaller clips would have mattered. Even the Newtown guy was dropping them half-used. Shotguns can be reloaded on the fly, while always being ready to shoot. Speedloaders and speedstrips make reloading even revolvers very quick. Most shooters carried more than one gun too, so they always have at least a backup. This is all pretty common sense for anyone that plans to get into a firefight.

The only times I can think of where magazine size has figured into the equation was a couple of times when the guy tried to use one of those 100 round drum mags and it caused the weapon to jam, as would be expected by anyone that's familiar with the track record of those things. I think that happened with the Aurora shooter.

So, no, reducing mag size would just be an inconvenience to law-abiding owners. Anyone else doesn't care that they're against the law. They are plentiful around the world and could be had fairly cheaply if someone so desired. We'll just end up creating yet another black market trade across our borders, which, predictably, we'll be completely unsuccessful at stopping. It will, however, give the government all sorts of reasons to infringe on the liberties of citizens in the name of the War on Guns. Yeah, we need another one of those...

These shooters haven't gotten their weapons through illegal means, though. So you can say that they could have purchased larger capacity clips on the black market... but they haven't used the black market. They've purchased everything legitimately, or taken them from others who have.

This whole "acquired through illegal means" argument makes no sense because it isn't relevant. Yeah, there are criminals out there with illegal guns. Do you know who they tend to kill? Other criminals. The vast majority of illegal gun crime is gang crime. The vast majority of gang crime is gang on gang crime.

Beamer wrote on Jan 15, 2013, 10:11:One issue often overlooked here is also the media. Each killing gets covered more and more in-depth. Each shooter becomes more and more a household name. This just leads to more shootings.

But how do you stop that?

We don't know. It's not an easy thing to change. Of course the networks won't stop covering - it's huge ratings. The government doesn't have a leg to stand on to stopping them. And people just tune in.

So there's really nothing we can control there, and that's probably the single biggest factor in why this happens - people wanting to be famous.

Ultimately we can't stop these. All we can do is lessen their frequency and their damage. Hence: smaller clips. Hence: more restrictions on getting guns.

Haven't really seen a case where smaller clips would have mattered. Even the Newtown guy was dropping them half-used. Shotguns can be reloaded on the fly, while always being ready to shoot. Speedloaders and speedstrips make reloading even revolvers very quick. Most shooters carried more than one gun too, so they always have at least a backup. This is all pretty common sense for anyone that plans to get into a firefight.

The only times I can think of where magazine size has figured into the equation was a couple of times when the guy tried to use one of those 100 round drum mags and it caused the weapon to jam, as would be expected by anyone that's familiar with the track record of those things. I think that happened with the Aurora shooter.

So, no, reducing mag size would just be an inconvenience to law-abiding owners. Anyone else doesn't care that they're against the law. They are plentiful around the world and could be had fairly cheaply if someone so desired. We'll just end up creating yet another black market trade across our borders, which, predictably, we'll be completely unsuccessful at stopping. It will, however, give the government all sorts of reasons to infringe on the liberties of citizens in the name of the War on Guns. Yeah, we need another one of those...

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

One issue often overlooked here is also the media. Each killing gets covered more and more in-depth. Each shooter becomes more and more a household name. This just leads to more shootings.

But how do you stop that?

We don't know. It's not an easy thing to change. Of course the networks won't stop covering - it's huge ratings. The government doesn't have a leg to stand on to stopping them. And people just tune in.

So there's really nothing we can control there, and that's probably the single biggest factor in why this happens - people wanting to be famous.

Ultimately we can't stop these. All we can do is lessen their frequency and their damage. Hence: smaller clips. Hence: more restrictions on getting guns.

You really don't need to be an expert to note the connection between the individuals doing these crimes and the fact that they're all mentally unstable.

I was referring to the clip ban comment and making a blanket statement about mentality instability is neither here nor there anyway. Bullying, parental issues, abuse, etc have all been factors in the past. It's not as simple as "fix mental health duh!!!". That's the whole problem with this sort of debate, people think there are simple solutions to complex problems and that's rarely the case when it involves a society of people.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 12:23:I realize you need to periodically update, I have no problems with that. The issue I have with this whole debate is they should be looking at the mental health aspect and ways we can improve that. Instead we're looking to ban clip sizes which won't make one lick of difference.

No, that's not what I take from this at all. Clip size bans might have an effect, I'm no expert in this stuff so I can't make a definitive statement and I doubt you are either which calls your conclusion into question. It goes without saying that mental health issues need to be tackled but it's the same types of voters who don't want health care that also don't want any gun control. There's no reason we can't do both either.

Most of the ideas being considered for legislation right now are just worthless and will only affect law-abiding gun owners. It's political pandering and grandstanding. They're not going to make anyone safer.

That's really my problem with this stuff in general, it brings out the people who to the extreme of their own ideals and politicians just go into bandaid mode. Measured responses and moderate voters largely get shut out.

You really don't need to be an expert to note the connection between the individuals doing these crimes and the fact that they're all mentally unstable.

I never said I was not for health care reform, I'm not however for a bill that is not only quite possibly unconstitutional, but was rammed through without anyone actually reading the damn thing, and doesn't involve an Opt out. Yay Obama passed a new tax and calls it healthcare, lets pat him on the back for a job well done!

Both sides should have worked together, but because neither side wants to do so we get shit like Obamacare. yay!

It's the same thing with spending, libs only want to cut the military, repubs want to cut entitlement spending. Surely there's a middle ground somewhere you would think.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 12:23:I realize you need to periodically update, I have no problems with that. The issue I have with this whole debate is they should be looking at the mental health aspect and ways we can improve that. Instead we're looking to ban clip sizes which won't make one lick of difference.

No, that's not what I take from this at all. Clip size bans might have an effect, I'm no expert in this stuff so I can't make a definitive statement and I doubt you are either which calls your conclusion into question. It goes without saying that mental health issues need to be tackled but it's the same types of voters who don't want health care that also don't want any gun control. There's no reason we can't do both either.

Not all of us are in that same group. I'm an independent, and against the pointless gun control laws they're proposing now, in favor of some reasonable changes to gun laws that actually could help, and very much in favor of better mental health care (and better health care in general). I do think you're right that there are a lot that are against both though. I don't understand those people though, so I certainly can't speak for them.

Seems like the media is fixated on putting as many whackjobs on the air on this topic as they can find, so you end up with guys like Alex Jones getting interviewed. He sure as hell doesn't speak for me. Neither does LaPierre, for that matter.

Edit: Nice to see at least some of the nutjobs out there getting called on it.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 12:23:I realize you need to periodically update, I have no problems with that. The issue I have with this whole debate is they should be looking at the mental health aspect and ways we can improve that. Instead we're looking to ban clip sizes which won't make one lick of difference.

No, that's not what I take from this at all. Clip size bans might have an effect, I'm no expert in this stuff so I can't make a definitive statement and I doubt you are either which calls your conclusion into question. It goes without saying that mental health issues need to be tackled but it's the same types of voters who don't want health care that also don't want any gun control. There's no reason we can't do both either.

Most of the ideas being considered for legislation right now are just worthless and will only affect law-abiding gun owners. It's political pandering and grandstanding. They're not going to make anyone safer.

That's really my problem with this stuff in general, it brings out the people who to the extreme of their own ideals and politicians just go into bandaid mode. Measured responses and moderate voters largely get shut out.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 11:42:A handgun can fire blistering fast as well. A vehicle can be used as a one ton projectile of death, and was I believe the leading cause of death last year, so should we ban cars? Maybe just the fast vroom vroom red ones? And again the 2nd amendment is not there for "hunting" But you know that.

This argument doesn't make any sense, it's not about determining the leading causes of death as those are known quantities. You're also ignoring that a great deal of prevention measures have been and continue to be enacted for things like cars, roadways, chemicals, etc. Gun control debates are pointless anyway, people on both sides get too emotional and are way too invested in their position to ever be reasonable about it.

Updating and modifying gun control happens all the time and I would think any responsible gun advocate will appreciate that. It's not a catch all to stop random violence though, people need to realize that. Just like updating health care will not guarantee that a sick person won't get a gun and do this again. There are no fixes, all we can do is strive to do better and hope that it works.

There are things we can do that may actually help. Improve reporting by the states to update NICS. Enable NICS use for background checks for private sales. Improve access to mental health care, and work to de-stigmatize it. Require that weapons be locked up in homes where there is a resident with mental issues that would disqualify them from ownership (and depending on the details, this could be applied more broadly).

Most of the ideas being considered for legislation right now are just worthless and will only affect law-abiding gun owners. It's political pandering and grandstanding. They're not going to make anyone safer.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Beamer wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 11:44:We make it difficult to get cars, take licenses away all the time, and have an enormous amount of restrictions on them that we don't have on guns.

Getting a car is not very hard at all actually. It basically just costs money. Driving tests are very easy to pass, and once you pass one, there's little chance you'll ever be tested again.

For all the regulations on them that we do have, we still have tens of thousands of vehicle-related deaths every year. Those restrictions don't prevent people from driving intoxicated, tired, or from road raging or racing or other dangerous behavior. We do very little to take bad or impaired drivers off the road too. How many accidents are caused by old people who shouldn't be driving anymore for various medical reasons? It's not until they cause an accident that anyone even tries to evaluate their abilities or take away their license.

The point is that if people are willing to break the law, then the law is no longer an impediment to them. You can stack 20 more laws on top of that, and it's really not going to make a difference. Just like designating places as "gun-free zones" isn't going to do anything to improve safety. You've basically stopped anyone with the intent to abide by the law from having a weapon there. Congrats on that.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)